Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — that folder_access overrides the general permission set only in those folders, where rights originate (role vs defaults), and that blocked can nullify access entirely regardless of rights.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries real information, but the single long sentence with multiple parenthetical digressions is dense and slightly run-on. It is appropriately sized for a definition with no output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the return-value burden: it enumerates role, folders, per-folder overrides, permission source, and the blocked reasons (invite_not_accepted, email_not_confirmed). Combined with fully documented params and safety annotations, nothing essential for correct use is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (member_id, workspace_id) already document their source (member_id from get_workspace_members, workspace_id from workspace://list). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a specific verb+resource (returns the effective access rights of one member) and frames the real-world question it answers, which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_workspace_members (a list) and from the setters set_workspace_member_role/set_workspace_member_folders. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a concrete triggering scenario (diagnosing why a colleague cannot see answers or delete a survey), which is clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest alternatives (get_workspace_members, get_workspace_roles), so no exclusion guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.